Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-09-14
PROHIBITION VICTORY.
The Supreme Court Decides
that an Iowa Distilery
Must Close.
Two Opinions Submitied---Grounds
Upon which the Defense Based
His Case.

DE MONIES, iowa, Sept. 13.-The SUI
preme court has filed its opinion in the
case brought to permanently enjoin the
international distillery at this place as a
nuisance for alleged violation Of the pro-
hibitioa law. 1t sustains the injunction
decree OF the lower court. The majority
opinion, written by Justice Beck, re-
ceives the assent of Justices Adams and
Rothrock. A dissenting opinion, written
by Justice Sewers, receives the approval
of Justice Reed.
Suit was Brought last spring to have
the distillery enjoined from manufactur-
ing alcohol or proof spirits on the ground
that the prohibitory law which forbade
the manufacture and sale of liquor ap-
piled to 1t the same as to a. brewery or
saloon. The owner of the distillery,
George w. Kidd of New York, resisted
the suit on The ground that his manu-
facture was entirely for export
without the state, and that no
portion of his goods was sold in Iowa. He
had secured the advice of eminent counsel
in New York before building the distil-
lery here, INT had been assured that by
manufacturing for export only his
plant could not be interfered with by the
state law. The district court granted a
temporary injunction ~suspending its Of
feet for a few weeks to enable the distil-
lcfy to close up its affairs, and then make
| the Injunction permanent. The case WAS
appealed to the supreme court, the de-
PENDANT holding that the provisions of
the prohibitory law applied only to man
ufacGure and sale within the state, and
that to interfere with a business carried
on with citizens of other states would be
an interference with which
congress alone has the power to regulate.
The majority opinion holds that the
right of the state TO prohibit the manu-
facture of alcohol is absolute, and that it
applies to the distillery, whatever may be
the ultimate destination of the product. 1t
holds that it does not interfere with the
inter state commerce, because it simply
prevents the manufacture of sn article
before it becomes asubject for Transports
tion. 1t holds that if it is against public
policy that liquor be manufactured and
sold in Iowa, then this state has no right
to permit its manufacture for sale In
other states.
The minority opinion concludes as fol-
lows: I'm my Judgment the plain and
only meaning of the statute is that the
/ sale III tnlS SIate ana Ihe manufacture for
sale and use in this state of Intoxicating
liquors for unlawful purposes are alone
prohibited, and that the statute does not
undertake to say what may done with the
liquor in another state. II IL did SO a
question would be presented as to the
validity of the statute. Therefore. the
right to sell and transport liquor from
the state exists simply because it is not
prohibited. In my opinion the construc.
ton OF the statute adopted by the ma.
jority makes aconfiict between 1t and the
constitution of the United States, and
therefore the fifth paragraphof the fore.
going opinion is unsound. AS long as in.
toxicating liquors and corn are regarded
as property, the right to transport either
out of the state exists, although the
ayowed use OF the corn SO shipped is fol-
the manufacture Of such liquors in an
other state. / also desire to reserve tt
myself the right her ,fter to determine
the police power inherent in the state.
As an individual I cordially assent TO al
that is said in the opinion of the majority
as to the evils of intemperance, but l hayt
doubts as to the materiality in the de
termination of this controversy